How is Racheal Reeves planning to raise money?

[Chickenuggetsticks]

Exactly that really, I wouldn’t be surprised by a pensions raid. I read an article in the telegraph talking about using PFI again (which is horrifying as the article suggests the total cost of pfi is forecast to be 555% of the original loans.

I just haven’t seen much discussion and I’m wondering if anyone has seen anything concrete about Labours plans?

The economy is growing under the Conservatives
That’s good , thanks for pointing that out.

👏👏Good to know😊

Hopefully the COVID corruption minister she appoints will help rake back some of the millions given to corrupt Tory mates in the last 4 years.

The thrust of their argument is paying for plans through a mixture of taxes on companies making excess profits, some very high earners (think top 1% like non-doms) and growth .. and via benefits of sound long term investments.

Its not at all left wing like their name suggests. Extra income via growth mostly goes in the pockets of high earners, and stays there because the whole "trickle down" into higher wages etc is a myth. The more people earn beyond they actually need, they primarily increase their own wealth and work to ensure they keep it .. which isn't hard when you're well connected to MPs, media owners and make sound investments in "think tanks" etc

I'm worried about it. We don't have the infrastructure to cope with it. Hence it's virtually impossible to get a GP appointment, NHS dentists are like hens teeth, not enough housing for the people already in the UK, and yet we admit more and more every month, making competition for resources worse. We need to press a pause button and work on boosting resources.

@blossomtoes

My point was to not touch pensions. There shouldn’t be a cap on pensions. When the person dies, if there is anything left it should be taxed as part of their estate. You can’t start exempting some from the pension cap and it makes no sense to have a cap in the first place. The people with real wealth don’t have it in their pension.

The real value add to peoples lives is to reduce the cost of housing. It benefits everyone to do this except the 1% landowners who have helped create a nightmare constraint on supply.

Agree.
We need to go back to building town houses, terraced houses and flats.
We are building more ‘houses’ for cars than people these days and lining the pockets of developers.
Terraces etc would also reduce energy usage, more houses could be accommodated on land thus preserving the natural environment and of course
They would be cheaper to build and buy.

The planning and housing departments in Government need a huge shakeup.

I agree. Build 4 bedroom terrace homes with one parking spot for a car and lockable covered storage for 5 bicycles. Have one of the bedroom downstairs so if someone is disabled the whole family don’t need to move. If grandparents are aging and need care they can live with family if private care at their own home isn’t affordable.

My opinion on cars is slightly different. I think we should plan for every household to have a car. It’s so expensive to have a car I avoid driving when possible. Again, plan for the worst case of everyone having one car and hope for the best that people cycle, walk or take the bus, is a better strategy than what these guys have thought up in the past 30 years.

I also think we need to completely rethink the non dom status. It’s ridiculous that I qualify for it and can return to the UK using it to save on taxes paid.

If you enter the UK beyond being a tourist you need to be a resident. As a resident you are subject to paying taxes. The whole Rwanda conversation and subsequent debate/vote was deeply embarrassing. Why can’t we process people here? Fly them back to their country of origin if they don’t meet the criteria. If we were stricter they would stop coming. If the law is the problem we need to fix the law. Using Rwanda as a work around is just not acceptable.

Not for nothing, Denmark was awful to refugees. Guess what…they had very few wanting to live there. They were incredibly open to Ukraine compared to Syrians. The racism I saw was a life changing experience.

I think the issue with processing people who are not true asylum seekers is that many refuse to say where they came from
it’s illegal to force dna as a means to determine this as well
if someone has no known home, where do you send them to
if someone has no formal form of identity you can’t send them back to anywhere.
people also have a right to appeal many times whilst here and even if they are deported a right to appeal to the Home Office.

I lived in Tottenham many years ago and we had a brown package put through our door by accident ( sent to our address with The Occupier on it ) I opened it and it was about 100 pages on ‘ how to claim asylum’. Basically a go to guide on what questions you’ll be asked and what to answer. This is a big industry and lots of people make lots of money and it’s those people that we should be finding and prosecuting.

If they won’t tell you where they are from you put them in jail and have them work in jail to cover part of their cost. You take away any freedom they had and make it as bad or worse than their country of origin. Give them one meal a day, nothing beyond the very basic items which they have to work for and they will soon stop coming. No television, no cell phone and no internet. The only call allowed is the request to speak to a lawyer. They will come when they are available. You might need to wait a week or two, just like we have to wait to see a doctor.

No one who isn’t a true refugee goes to Denmark to claim asylum because it’s unbelievably tough there. They go too far and also use Rwanda as a processing center.

And again, Rwanda isn’t the answer. The law is the issue so they need to fix the law. The number of appeals allowed is ridiculous but that is based on the law. One appeal only should be what’s allowed. Then you are deported and you can reapply from your country of origin.

When you are paying your own legal bills you don’t appeal all that often because going to court is ridiculously expensive.

It's not because you asked a question, it's because of how you asked it.

I think people assume troll/Tory bot because they recognise a pattern....well I do anyway....after seeing multiple treads start in similar ways.

Here's the script....

Always a really confrontational OP, never a 'what do you all think about.....?"

Often quoting a partisan source.

Always spelling mistakes, in the title, OP and subsequent posts. (Is this to ensure a few quick replies pointing that out and bumping the post to the top of the list? I don't know.)

Repetition of tired tropes or well used and disproved (many times over) phrases.

A few posts quickly supporting the OP from equally confrontational posters, often posters who appear nowhere else on MN and who then disappear.

The OP then replies to posters with equally confrontational, sometimes downright rude comments and almost always tries to shut posters down with accusations like 'silly', 'disordered thinking' and 'paranoia'.

If nobody answers the OP's question the OP complains about this.

If posters answer the OP's question the OP seldom responds to or acknowledges the answer and immediately changes tack slightly to something related (or not), equally confrontational and hard to answer/disprove/prove.

OP always has fiercely critical stance of Labour....but is not voting Tory, oh no! They're as dissatisfied as the rest of us with the Tories/used to vote Tory but can't now/don't know who to vote for/all politicians are the same/will spoil their voting paper unless MN can provide them with some direction.

The OP often comes within minutes of the clock chiming the hour.........almost as though someone has 'clocked on' at their desk with task A of the day being Post Disruptive Thread.

I like spotting patterns and this is a clear and obvious pattern. I bet other frequent posters recognise it like the back of their hand.

I'm not saying this is you OP, but have a scan back through your thread and see how many of the above boxes you tick. Then, if you're that way inclined, you'll see the pattern forming daily on multiple other threads.

Why?

What @churchview said.

OH, and while I'm here, here's my answer to your OP for what it's worth.

Rachel Reeves has A levels in Maths, Economics and Politics. A degree in PPE from Oxford and an MSc in Economics from the London School of Economics. She has also worked for the Bank of England and is a time served politician with 20 years experience.

I'm a gardener, not a politician. I put my trust in Rachel to know what I don't. I would happily put my faith in her and sincerely hope that she doesn't come to me for advice (unless it's about how to keep aphids off her roses).

I don't know how Rachel will pay for it but I put my trust in her more than I do this current bunch who have been a complete debacle for the country. 14 years they've had to put things right and look at us! All the billions they've squandered and really, just look at the state of us - our hospitals, schools, economy, roads, public transport systems, GP provision, social services, mental health provision, food banks, rivers, world wide reputation, water supply, housing...and on and on.

We need someone clever to try to put things right and not line their mates pockets with our money - Rachel seems a good bet.

Spot on @Churchview. 👏🏻

I don't think anyone is questioning RR's ability to do the job, she is a highly educated woman. It's the Labour big state and taxation that I don't like. I pay tough tax, I don't want to pay anymore and will change things to ensure I don't. That's what people will do, they are sick of seeing their taxes wasted and hearing of families with big benefit payouts.

Re the housing. I want to know HOW they are going to build 1.5 million homes - there aren't enough tradespeople and construction companies are going under.

It's the Labour big state and taxation that I don't like.

They would be hard pushed to raise taxes any more than the current bunch.

How about we wait til the manifestos are out and then see?

Or to shrink the state any smaller. Public services are virtually non existent now.

Shame they're not going to finally give compensation to the 3 million that Rishi excluded from covid support schemes! It would be good for any monies recovered from fraud to be re-directed to help those who are still struggling after losing their businesses/livelihoods due to falling foul of the insane rules that Rishi devised!

And yet we spend hundreds of billions on "public services" - something must be going wrong somewhere.

Why?

The answer is to make the NHS pension scheme more flexible so that when doctors get towards the £1m limit (or whatever) they can opt to reduce or zeroise the pension contributions. At present, my understanding is that the NHS scheme has no such flexibility, which is the REAL problem, not the arbitrary £1m limit. Because there is no flexibility, doctors wishing to avoid the tax penalty have no choice but to reduce their wages, i.e. work less which is obviously stupid at a time when we need more doctors working more hours, not less!

Indeed. Wouldn’t it be nice if the government told us what they were doing with it? They’re very reticent.

But then they would have to admit to just how much of the money goes to friends / in-laws.

Same with local councils. It's all supposed to be open and transparent with the reporting, etc., but it all gets lumped together, i.e. £x billion education, £y billion social services, etc., with absolutely no useful breakdown between wages, pensions, property expenses, equipment, consumables, etc., so no use whatsoever to the taxpayer for decision making. They will have the detail but choose not to publish anything more than the sector headline figures.